Well, here’s a challange. Find everything you can about the early Church, read the book I suggested in the other thread, read the Early Church Fathers (there’s an excellent series of three books by Jurgens “the faith of the early fathers”), another good book is “The Catholic Verses” by Dave armstrong. These are a few of the ones I’ve read, but don’t stop there. Read ALL you can find, because when you search history you will find the Catholic Church. Hey, let us know other good books on the subject, we’re always eager to learn.
Edited Title: verify that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church with its leadership acting under the authority of successorship from the original apostles?
correct anthanasi, my complaint is’nt that the war took place, I’m merely not seeing that christ’s body would fight for an earthly kingdom by military or by politics in trying to rule over earthly kings when Jesus specifically said his kingdom was not of this earth, if “it were of this world my servants would fight for me.”
the crusades, although necesary in an earthly sense, were the business of earth. providing a place where we can worship free of persecution was never the god given role of the church. Jesus sent his apostles out as sheep for slaughter. and so it continues today with God’s people arround the world. the attitude of the first century apostles was to live in the earth as seperate from it. this was the prayer of our lord as well–inescably seperate stranges calling others to him.
Don’t make blanket accusations that people are liars, it’s rude.
Moreover, I’ve always been curious that an Apostolic Church has no Apostles, even though Paul explicitly states that they’re still needed.
Haven’t you heard of our bishops? They have exactly the office and authority of the Apostles.
If this Christian tradition is enough to verify the Bible, why isn’t it enough to verify the Church as well?
Interesting, although (unfortunately) supported by the Church, was the “Church” actually a major armed force? I thought it was the secular nations supported by the Church. If England goes on a crusade, with the suypport of the Church, is it the same as the Church going on the crusade?
If there is King in heaven , so there should be the King on the earth.
Heavenly Kingdom is hierarchical as the earthly should be.
There is the word of God , the message from God for every body, to know his duties and responsibilities.
For the policeman , for the soldier , for the Judge.
Jesus has promised us only one heaven , but not hear on earth.
As long as there is a sin , there will be wars , there will be need for justice , the need for defense,
Need for the peacemakers.
You must defend your family and your children , your neighbor, when there is a reason for that.
And its an act of love.
Also see Irenaeus of Lyons, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp.
Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna and lived a very long time. He was a disciple of St. John. Irenaeus wrote against the Gnostics and he knew Polycarp. Ignatius of Antioch was the third bishop of Antioch.
If you want to learn what the early church was like, try reading some of these guys.
The Catholic Church is the Only True Church because it has been proven in history. The ECF wrote of a Church that is Apostolic. The LDS is nothing more than a man-made religion by John Smith. The Book of Mormon itself has been disproven because many of the cities mention there is not verified. But that is another thread. LDS is a false religion.
Only the Catholic Church is the Truth Church of God. The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth. St. Peter is the first Pope. Jesus promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church, and if LDS is true, then Jesus lied to Peter.
Jesus of course speaks the Truth and he never lie. Therefore the Catholic Church is the only Truth Church of Jesus Christ.
For one the LDS deny Trinity, and they aren’t real Christians.
OK… From a purely historical perspective, Is there any other Church besides the Catholic Church (including the EO) that can trace their Church back to the times of Christ? Indeed if they can, if goes back to the Catholic Church as is the case of the Lutherans. Not only using the Bible, but the writings of the ECF, The historical writings of the era (ie Constantine), even the governmental records of the Romans… (Who was in power when and who their “enemies” were. Putting all these together leads us to known Catholics…all the way back to the Biblcal age. If this isn’t proof enough for you, then nothing short of Christ establishing his Church (not churches) will convince you. The Catholic Church has records and historical writings that date back to 70-90 AD that refer to the “Church” as Catholic or universal. Look back at the ECF as was recommended to you… very good and interesting reading indeed!
True, but it was man-made by Joseph Smith. John Smith is responsible for the Baptist movements.
Had Joseph Smith taken his talents in a different direction, he could have been a very successful science-fiction writer.
The Book of Mormon is nothing more than a work of fiction. It isn’t true.
The enthusiasts had a passion to serve God.
Their passion was the dedication to the word of God.
But the fact , that these re-inventing Christianity movements were schismatic - proves them as a sects not the apostles continuation .
Authoritarianism , opposition to the world, dualistic conception of the reality , subjectively - arbitrary interpretation of the Bible , domination of the emotion. All these are just a features of the sect characteristic.
Jesus Himself gives us the measuring stick. He tells us in Matthew 7
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So by their fruits you will know them.
So, what are the fruits of the bishops?
We look for a consistant message that is generational. We look at the early Church Fathers, who were bishops themselves, and compare teachings then and now. Are they the same or diferent?
We look at what is being taught and compare it to scripture. Is it incompatable, yes or no?
It is true that some bishops have gone thier own way. For instance, one of them was Arius. He was excommunicated.
The bishops share the consistant message that is shown from the beginning of christianity. They carry the generational message that has been there from the beginning. They act with the same authority as the apostles.
You cannot prove color to the blind man.
And those 1st through 4th century Christians belonged to which church—say it…say it…
I simply love the Orthodox and Protestant attempts to wish away history.
The Orthodox didn’t fall away from the Catholic Church until the seat of the Roman Empire moved to Constatinople and they made a power play for control of the Church on the basis that Rome was no longer the Imperial seat. The Eastern bishops for a variety of reasons agreed, and bam! a new church was born.
And yet even they do not seem to argue that NO church existed between Pentecost and the schism, as the Protestants do with their “invisible church” silliness.
As the ongoing schisms in Protestantism amply demonstrate, when everybody is their own authority you have anarchy. As the gospel was spread and Christians proliferated, the Early Church Fathers had to deal with any number of heresies, large and small. Constantine’s conversion only exacerbated these problems, since as with the Orthodox patriarchs, Roman culture was a profoundly enormous crosscurrent to Christian tradition. Citizens of the Empire came to the faith in droves, but likewise naturally tried to reconcile it with their own culture. Absent a strong central ecclesiastical authority, the anarchy we see today among, between, and within Protestant churches would have infected all of Christendom.
So how do I know the Catholic Church was this church?
Because for the first centuries of Christianity we have considerable documentary evidence regarding apostolic succession and the activities of the first bishops to educate and correct their brethren on matters of the faith. Justin Martyr describes a liturgy that resembles Mass today so closely that I’m fairly certain he would be comfortable taking part in Sunday Mass in my parish.
Moreover, the Church in Rome survived the fall of the Roman Empire itself. Compare that to the sad fate of Constantinople, or of Moscow.
As Scott Hahn has asked, “Where are the other claimants?”
A consistant message is that of Apostolic authority.
Here are some quotes by the Early Church Fathers on the subject of Apostolic Authority, (from the Coming Home Network)…
“Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80
"You must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1-2, AD 107
"The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things 'just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the Tradition is one and the same."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1, 10, 2, c. AD 190
"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again."
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 7:1, AD 107
“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration, and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 66, A.D. 151
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved…Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret…If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger…You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58–59, 63, A.D. 80
“Ignatius…to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, 1:1, A.D. 110
"It is possible, then, for every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times…But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition."
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1-2, c. AD 190
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” [see endnote]
St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251
“(T)hey have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” And the vessel of divine election himself said: “If ye have forgiven anything to any one, I forgive also, for what I have forgiven I have done it for your sakes in the person of Christ.”
St. Ambrose of Milan, On Penance, Book One, Ch. VII, v. 33, c. A.D. 390.
“For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 3.2, ca. A.D. 110
“There is nothing more serious than the sacrilege of schism because there is no just cause for severing the unity of the Church.”
St. Augustine, Treatise On Baptism Against the Donatists, Bk 5, Ch. 1, A.D. 400
1)The creeds are what the early Christian church believed, and the closer one gets to the source (Apostles) the better understanding one has of who had the authority passed down to them. The Apostles and Nicean creeds both affirmed what the early Christians were taught…“one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” The Catholic church is one (John 17:21) in doctrine (dogma) and ligtury (worship) around the world.al evidence (secular and non-Catholic sources) prove the Catholic church IS the church Christ established and that no other “church” can claim its antiquity nor inception from the Apostles is evidence also.
Historical evidence (secular and non-Catholic sources) both affirm Catholicism’s antiquity and inception from the Apostles.
From authoritative councils e.g., Council of Nicea 325 AD, Orange 529 AD, Chalcedon 451 AD, Rome 382 AD. All of these councils and many others that gave us the correct and deeper understanding of theological truths (e.g., Trinity/homoosius, hypostatic union, justification by grace and the canon of scripture) and are a continuation of the authority of the council of Jerusalem of Acts 15.
Early church fathers we Catholic in their theology. They weren’t Protestant, that’s for sure.
is the church taking a political position in the affairs of government by endorsing or protesting the crusades(or any other political issue? is that in the keeping of the spirit of christ, “my kingdom is not of this world, if it were of this world my servants would fight for me.”
perhaps an explanation might be that while it would be wrong for us to fight to establish God’s kingdom on earth through human politics, we still have the responsability of patriotism to our natural nationality? what is the truth?